These SUV/crossovers offer 2-liter turbo 4 engines in 2013:
- AUDI Q5
- BMW X3
- FORD ESCAPE
- FORD EXPLORER
- HUNDAI SANTA FE
- LAND ROVER LR2
- RANGE ROVER EVOQUE
- VOLKSWAGEN TIGUAN

Again...why is Acura/Honda abandoning one of their best performing turbo engines?

 

My guess is to streamline to lower cost and complexity. Plus, the people wanted V-6 powerplant and got it. I love my 2.3T in my RDX; but, off the line power really sucks and my 19-21 mpg looks really bad compared to the 2013 RDX 27-28 mpg.

 

Maybe they wanted to compete in the mpg game.

 

Because this segment wants smooth power with good gas mileage. Thats what the 2007 to 2012 RDX is lacking. Had I had the choice when I purchased the 2011 RDX, I would have for sure bought the 2013, mainly for the powertrain, and I like my RDX.

 

All they had to do with the 2.3 is tune it and mate it to a 6 speed trans, but it's always the same thing, tune is mild to improve longevity.

 

You speak for the whole segment?

I would not trade our '11 for a brand new '13. We did not buy it with fuel economy in mind.

 

Exactly, I gladly take the low fuel economy for the performance. I love my RDX

 

If you guys like the 2013 so much, buy it then, it's called trading in.
I'm confident the turbo 4 would get 28 mpg if it had a 6th gear.
The 2013 looks like a toyota Venza, I don't like the way it looks and neither do many others here.

 

Hope it comes together soon for you Joe.

 

Because people are uninformed enough to think that because 6 is more than 4 the engine performs better. The six speed transmission and removal of SH-AWD are the heavy lifters in all of the mileage improvements. The 2.3T is a better engine...way better torque.

Hard to get excited about one of the weakest six cylinder engines on the market in a premium vehicle. Now the spring in price to the Q5/X3 is worth it.

 

I think the old RDX looks terrible. Looks like a bird beak at the front. No thanks.

 

this^


Acura

 

Only thing I like about the 2013 RDX is the interior like the dash, power tailgate and GPS.

I could careless about the v6 and crv AWD system.

I would like the turbo RDX to do better in mileages (sixth or seven gear) but with the SH-AWD system.
The safely and fun outweighs the interior and mileages of the +13 IMO.

I highly doubt the +13 RDX owners will be very happy if there is a snow or heavy rain storm.
I have 100% confidence in the SH-AWD and never got stuck in the East coast snow blizzard.

 

Somebody must like them because they can barely keep them on the lot.

 

It is said you don't miss your water till your well runs dry. If you never drank water it stands to reason you would never miss it.

Point is the dealer is trying to sell the '13. He may not tell many buyers that the turbo made the car, or that it is mild mannered and heavier with the v6.

Caveat emptor!

 

Well, living in Alaska where the snow stays on the ground for 5 months out of the year and they don't salt the roads here...I love my 2013 RDX with it's "wimpy" AWD system. I also love my 2012 CRV with the same AWD. Never been stuck and last winter was the most snow on record in Anchorage, AK (I pushed snow with the bumper of my CRV). Oh...and that was with the stock tires. I can't wait to put some good snow tires on.

In all seriousness. Everyone that has the 1st gen RDX and likes it...that is great. But the facts don't lie...it wasn't a great seller. Acura did their homework and found out what the majority of their target audience wants. They built it and now Acura can't keep them in stock. Must have done something right.

I have owned a couple of BMW's. One of them had the x-drive. Now that is a crappy AWD system for snow! I understand it is designed more for performance but in the snow I would get the rear end loose all the time. The rear wheels have to spin before the fronts will grab...well by the time the rear is spinning in snow it is too late, the car is getting sideways (although it was fun when I was wanting to do it!).

To each their own and I respect everyone's opinion on the subject. For me...the new 2013 RDX is heaven.

 

Please excuse me, '13 is 214 lbs lighter. (claimed)

Also double wishbone rear. Down side...60 a/r tires.

Wonder what the fr/RR wt ratios are? Add the heavier motor to the front, add the elect hatch rear.

 

2013 AWD weight distro: 59/41
2012 AWD weight distro: 57/43
So the V6 does add some weight to the front but it isn't that far off of the 1st gen RDX.

 

Have you driven a acura with the SH-AWD system?
Let me know once you do and see if your claims are still the same.

I have driven my friend's 2012 CRV and their AWD system is horrible IMO.

It is just like DRR98 statement-

How confidence are you when you are taking a turn or can avoid an accident with your current awd system.
Driving straight does not matter anything and people need to understand that all awd system are not the same.

 

I imagine the 2.3 turbo + SH-AWD was too expensive for Acura. It's the only Turbo in the entire Acura/Honda line, while the V6 can be found in several other Honda cars.

And most people look at number of horsepowers when comparing engines and 273 in the V6 vs the 240 in the 2.3 Turbo looks better for the V6. Which is too bad because having low-rev torque is way more useful for most people's day to day driving than how much power an engine produces at an RPM range that we almost never use anyways.

 

^^^Thanks. I wonder where they cut the 200lbs? How do you add 1.2L and 2 more of a lot of parts, plus an electric hatch, and drop 214lbs?

Yeah it's only 9lbs of tq at 500 revs sooner in the '12 & <.
But the '13 also makes 33hp more at 500 revs higher.

In the end either way YOU CHOSE, you are ahead of most of the competition!

 

I'm thinking if I put a cat less down pipe on my 08tech and get hondata I'll smoke a 13

 

With that combo, you will be able to pass anything but a gas station.

 

Well stock I've managed 25mpg highway... And the tune leans it out some and adds some timing so I could get better mileage if I keep my got out of it.

 

You let your goat drive it?

 

Foot * stupid swippy

 

Dan Neal, automotive journalist for the WSJ, wrote a review of the new RDX which was published last Saturday. You can probably find it online. He HATES the new RDX and really liked the old one. He claims to have been personally responsible for selling several RDXs because he thought so highly of them. He finds the new one bland and dumbed down, plus it no longer has the SH AWD which he considered a great benefit to the vehicle's handling. Anyway, check it out and don't disparage your '12 or earlier RDX.

 

Thanks for sharing. The author feels like many of us. It was a Honda geared toward fun sportiness. We morn it's passing and look ahead to see where we will find a replacement.

 

I was simply replying to your statement that people will be disappointed once they drive the 2013 in the snow. My experience in Alaska has been quite the opposite.

From your reply it is obvious to me that you and I are different drivers. It would seem that you push your vehicles and drive them as an "enthusiast" would (I could be wrong). I left those "enthusiast" days behind me with my BMW's. Now I am happy to cruise and see the sights. Maybe that is why the new RDX is for me?

You are 100% right when you state that the SH-AWD is performance oriented. That is exactly what it is. But that doesn't mean the new one is crap.

The first gen RDX wasn't a big seller for Acura. Acura did their homework and found out what was important to their target audience. I guess I am one of those. I wanted a sensible luxury car. I wanted a "grown-up" CRV. Great power, nice ride, nice interior, not too many freaking option packages to choose from, good mpg and a decent price. The RDX fit the bill perfectly. And many others think so as well...it is selling like hot cakes.

The fact it that Acura has made the 2013 less "enthusiast" and more main stream. Good or bad is debatable. But the sales numbers don't lie...it's popular.

Have a good one...

 

Although your statement is some what true.
The +13 models are selling more than the earlier years.

One of the main reasons is that it is a v6 now plus it has all the interior goodies of the TL and MDX.

Alot of people don't want a turbo model because of the higher maintenance part.

The Turbo is for the enthusiast part but the SH-AWD is for the safety section.

Are you telling me that all the people that purchase a model from acura with the SH-AWD is enthusiast or the people that purchase subaru outback, foresters or their SUV model are the same?

They have different model to gear toward different clients between the features and functions. But the truth is the AWD in the +13 is not the worse but certain not good.

There is really no difference between the+13 and toyota or mazda models.

Like I mention; have you drove a 07-12 model sh-awd model?

 

The main reason I went for my RDX was "performance" with the turbo and sh-awd (plus Hondata & Eibach springs). I would still pick the turbo/sh-awd over the V-6/6AT/CRV awd if the 08 RDX had the option of those two power trains. I do like the tech and updated interior of the 13 better.

I don't have much use for awd weather wise in the southwest because it is sooooo dry out here. We only had less than 5 inches of rain/snow since Jan 1st, 2012.

I always figured Acura was leaning toward sh-awd (option or standard) for all their top models down the road. When I retire the RDX 3-4 years from now, I might have to upgrade to the MDX or ZDX to get the performance I love with the sh-awd.

 

SH-AWD has nothing to do with traction in the snow. Its intent is to improve handling.
Once wheels start to spin beyond a certain point, it works in much the same way a a standard Honda AWD system. We have owned several CRVs with AWD ( including a 2012 - which is the best of the group so far ) and have never had any issue in the snow here in Chicago. The RDX is no better unless you are climbing an ice hill to display AWD abilities. ( so please don't send the YouTube link )
Snow tires would make a bigger difference than the SH-AWD.

I love SHAWD, even the more simple version in the RDX vrs the RDX, RL and TL. I put 96K miles on one, so far.

They redesigned this car, and have repeatedly said ipublicly, because CUV is a huge segment and the 'performance' orientation of the Turbo RDX was under performing in sales potential.

I also think they saw the X1 as competitor that can provide BWM cache for not a lot more money.

And please , I know that a similarly optioned BMW would cost lots more, but a lot of people would choose to own a BMW with less options over a better optioned Honda at the same price point.

 

^Badge envy blindness?

 

i went over to check it out at the local dealership and they said it is selling like hot cakes. but do you know why? and i quote: "all the old ladies are trading in their MDX's for the new 2013 rdx."

i cried a little inside... but they they told me that the ILX-type s may be dope.

 

It was a business decision. Not enough people bought the RDX, now that it's been watered-down, it's selling like hotcakes.

Personally I think it was the cheaper plastic bits in the interior that were the main objection. Your average RDX buyer seems to be empty nester couples with the woman being the primary driver.

 

^Does that qualify the RDX as a "chick car"?

Although my wife gets our the most, I try to put up a good fight.

 

The entire CUV segment might be a chick segment.

 

They also "softened" the ride for 2013 by going to 235/60-18 tires which are just under one inch larger diameter that the 235/55-18 in previous models.

 

I'm a single guy, I own an RDX, I love it. I sure hope the world doesnt see these as chick cars. The closest I've heard was from my supervisor at work calling it a soccer mom car. Then i reminded him that soccer moms couldnt handle a turbo

 

Well if our beloved RDX's are chick cars will adding some of those bull balls help?

Maybe that lift-kit too. And behind the bull balls hang an analog clock. So as the balls swing back and forth the folks behind can see what time it is. No chick car in its right mind would be seen with that set-up.

Never really thought of RDX as a chick car. I've heard Prelude described as same before, but disagree there too.

What defines a chick car?